1. Technical Field
The field of the invention is that of the implementation of deactivating guns, also called disruptors, adapted to deactivate explosive devices or other apparatuses. The invention is more particularly directed to enabling pointing (positioning and aligning) of such a disruptor with high accuracy while combining rapidity and simplicity of implementation.
2. Description of the Related Art
An example of a deactivating gun is described in Great Britain Pat. No. GB-2 224 102A; it comprises a base on which a gun is mounted with various possibilities of adjustment, in height and in elevation angle. The assembly is positioned near its target and the gun is manually pointed towards that target by an operator; no accessory is provided to facilitate that pointing.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,118,186 discloses a method and a device for adjusting an aiming device in weapons systems. An aiming telescope is fastened to the barrel of a weapon, as well as a laser range-finder which is attached to that telescope. A collimation line comprises a laser source fitted into the barrel of the weapon so as to be coaxial with the barrel, as well as a collimator defining a focal plane; the laser source combined with that collimator enables a reference mark to be formed in a film situated in the focal plane. A reference reticle linked to the aiming telescope is set using the range finder so as to ensure that the aiming of the aiming telescope corresponds to the firing line of the barrel. Such a configuration is complex due to the fact that the aiming axis is not coaxial with the barrel axis. It can be understood in fact from this document that it considers configurations in which the firing device is disposed far from its target.
U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0278964 discloses a laser integrated into the head of an arrow, which eliminates any problem of parallax between the arrow and the aiming laser, but means that the laser is lost after sending the arrow; another option is to provide an aiming laser close to the arrow, but a parallax offset, small but not zero, is then present again.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,777,754 teaches the mounting on a weapon of an optical unit of which the axis is slightly offset from that of the barrel, which, using a narrow beam, enables the point aimed at to be designated and using a broad beam enables the zone be to illuminated. However the fact that the optical aiming axis and the axis of the weapon are not coaxial has the drawback of giving rise to a certain firing error; furthermore, the orientation of the firing is not defined and does not therefore enable the angle of attack on the target to be controlled.
U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0276473 teaches the implementation of two laser diodes attached to a disruptor. These generate two crossed laser planes which project a cross onto the target whatever its distance from the disruptor. The disruptor is thus oriented so as to make that cross coincide with a point aimed at on the target. This solution does not define an aiming axis but only an arrival point for the projectile on the target. It does not therefore enable the angle of attack to be controlled. Moreover, it does not enable the disruptor to be brought into contact with the target since it would then no longer be possible to see the laser planes.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,523,582 discloses an accurate laser aiming system for a disruptor which is adapted to destroy a potential explosive device. This system is adapted to be interposed between the disruptor and its target; it comprises a base comprising two laser sources mounted back-to-back, along a common axis; that base is provided with components for position and orientation adjustment and a holed screen centered on the common axes of the laser sources and oriented rearward of the base, perpendicularly to that common axis; a mirror is furthermore provided to be fastened to the front of the disruptor, perpendicularly to its axis. The disruptor is first of all pointed as best as can be managed towards the target; the base is next positioned and oriented, in front of the disruptor, such that the front laser is positioned and oriented towards the target while the back laser intercepts the center of the mirror; if it appears that the beam sent back by the mirror fastened to the front of the disruptor is not sent back to the center of the screen, which means that the disruptor has not yet been correctly pointed, the position and orientation of the disruptor is next adjusted such that the mirror sends back the beam of the rear laser towards the center of the holed screen; it may prove necessary, by iterations, to re-position and realign the device according to the disruptor's displacement in terms of position and orientation. This device must be removed before triggering firing of the disruptor, whereas the mirror is generally left in place so as not to risk modifying the disruptor's configuration by removing it.
Such a system enables good co-linearity between the aiming accessory and the disruptor, subject nevertheless to the two lasers themselves being properly co-linear, which is generally rarely achieved with precision; furthermore, it has the drawback of requiring adjustment through iterations, which may prove difficult to implement; moreover, the requirement to position the device between the disruptor and its target has the drawback of preventing the disruptor being brought close to its target, which may adversely affect the effectiveness of the disruptor, in particular in case of a shaped charge. More particularly, the fact of placing the device with the laser sources between the disruptor and the target has two notable drawbacks. The first is to limit the accuracy of angular alignment of the laser axes since the setting errors will be all the more apparent the shorter the lever arm (unless the disruptor is disposed at a great distance from its target, which is generally not desired). The second is to prevent the disruptor and the target being brought closer together than a value fixed by the bulk of the lasers and the space necessary for the adjustments, which may compromise the effectiveness of the deactivation where, for example, a shaped charge is employed. Furthermore, the fact that the aligning mirror attached to the disruptor is destroyed by the projectile coming out therefrom generates a risk of modifying the trajectory of the projectile; furthermore, on breaking the mirror generates shards from which protection is required, complicating the use of the device all the more.